You
can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution
unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would
change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding
name! Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really "reign
in" the federal government? Will it really "show them"
that they have to balance their budget the same as we do?

Or does
it actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional?
Is it actually a massive grant of new constitutional
powers to the President and the federal courts - a grant which will cut
the Heart out of The Constitution our Framers gave us?

Amending
the Constitution is serious business - and you are morally bound to get
informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.

All
this spending - every penny of it - and trillions more which is not here
listed - has one thing in common: It is all unconstitutional
as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
Congress has no constitutional authority to spend money on these
projects. So! It was Congress' unconstitutional
spending which put us in the mess we are in today.

What
Does Our Constitution Permit Congress To Spend Money On?

WE THE
PEOPLE ordained and established a Constitution wherein the powers WE delegated
to the federal government are limited and defined - "enumerated".
Read the list at Art. I, Sec. 8! Basically, all WE gave Congress authority
to do for the Country at large is international relations, commerce &
war; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system (weights
& measures, patents & copyrights, a money system based on gold
& silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & road building.) Some
Amendments authorize Congress to make laws protecting civil rights. That's
about it, Folks! The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully
appropriate funds is short. The only significant authorized expense is
the military. James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, said in
Federalist
No. 45 (9th para):

"The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be
exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation,
and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for
the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several
States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course
of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people,
and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
[boldface added]

Note
that Madison contemplated that the federal government would be financed
in large part by taxation on foreign commerce. That is
because the constitutional powers of the federal government are so limited
& defined! The States and the People are to handle everything
else.

Do
you now see that Our Constitution does not authorize Congress
to pay for a museum for neon signs ($5.2 million), to archive
memorabilia for a rock group ($615,000), or to post poems in zoos ($997,766.)?
[See Sen. Coburn's Waste Book 2010]. Congress has no lawful authority
to do most of what they do. They just do it because they want to, they
have been doing it for a long time, and WE haven't known enough to stop
them. Our $14.4 trillion debt was caused by Congress'
spending in thousands of areas where they have no constitutional authority
to spend.

Is
the BBA Really the Solution?

So!
These 47 Senate Republicans (and some in the House) are showing you how
much they now "care" about fiscal responsibility by supporting
the BBA. But think: Why don't they control their spending
now? The Republicans control the House - NO
spending can get through the House unless the Republicans approve it.
So if the Republicans really wanted to control spending and balance the
budget, they could do it now. Why don't they do it? Because
they don't want to.

Furthermore,
the BBA they support with such broad smiles and glib promises of future
fiscal responsibility, doesn't make them control their spending. Instead,
it would legalize spending which is now unlawful
and would markedly increase the powers of the federal government. And
it would do nothing to reduce spending. In short, the
BBA is a Scam and a Terrible Trick.

What
Would We Get From the BBA ?

In plain
English, this is what the 10 Sections of the BBA mean [but read
it yourself - it's very short]:

Section
1: They won't spend more than they take in unless they
vote to spend more than they take in.

Section
2: They won't spend more than 18% of the GDP unless
they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.

Section
3: The President will write the budget: He will designate the
taxes, and what the money will be spent on. He won't spend more
than he decides to tax you for, and he won't spend more than 18% of the
GDP. The GDP is a computation made by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, an agency under
the control of the President. [Do you see? The President controls the
agency which computes the number which limits his spending.]

Sections
6 & 7: Congress can waive the above provisions of the BBA
(except for Sec. 4 which says they can't raise your taxes unless they
vote to raise your taxes) when there is a declared war or a "military
conflict" which they think justifies their waiving the above provisions
of the BBA.

Section
8: Courts can't order your taxes to be raised. [But you can bet
your life that this section, together with section 3, will be seen to
authorize the President to order that your taxes be raised.]

Section
9: I leave this to others to explain. But be assured the President's
minions will define stuff however he wants; make stuff "off-budget"
or "on-budget" to fit his agenda.

Section
10: Congress can make laws to enforce the BBA, and can rely on
numbers provided by the President who is to be given constitutional authority
to order tax increases & decide how to spend the money.

So!
Do you see? You get no benefit from the BBA. But it will cause
us irreparable harm.

How
Would the BBA Cut the Heart Out of Our Constitution?

1.
It would Transform Our Constitution From One of Enumerated Spending Powers
To One of General ("Unlimited") Spending Powers.

Congress'
Powers are Enumerated. Thus, the objects on which Congress may lawfully
appropriate funds are limited to those listed in the Constitution. Congress
has ignored the limitations on its powers for many decades - but at least
the limitations are still in the Constitution, to be invoked if We The
People ever repent.[2]

But
the BBA, by ignoring the unconstitutional objects
of Congress' spending, and by merely limiting the amount
of such spending to 18% of the GDP & the taxes the President assesses,
repeals the enumerated powers aspect of our Constitution.
Furthermore, if Congress limited its appropriations to its enumerated
powers, they could not possibly spend a sum as vast as 18% of the GDP.
Thus, the BBA is clear intention to repeal the enumerated powers, and
transform the federal government into one of general and unlimited
powers.

Congress'
idiotic spending is now unlawful & unconstitutional. But
with the BBA, it would become lawful & constitutional,
as long as the total spending doesn't exceed the limits (unless they waive
the limits). With the BBA, it will become lawful for them to appropriate
funds for whatever the President (who will write the budget)
says![3]

2.
The BBA Transfers Control of the "Purse" from Congress
to the President.

The
federal government didn't even have a budget until Congress passed the
Budget
and Accounting Act of 1921. That "law" purported to grant
budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.

But
the Budget Act of 1921 is unconstitutional: The Constitution
places the taxing & appropriations powers squarely in the hands of
Congress - not the Executive Branch; and contrary
to the beliefs of indoctrinated lawyers, Congress may not "amend"
the Constitution by making a law.[4]

Article
I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the Power
to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants
to Congress the Power to make the appropriations:

"No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Accordingly,
for most of our history, Congress made appropriations as the need arose;
determined the taxes, and kept records of both. [See Bruce
Bartlett's excellent history of the appropriations process.]

Our
Framers gave us an elegant system of separated powers, where Congress
commands the purse - not the Executive Branch and not the Judicial
Branch! In Federalist
No. 78 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton outlines this separation of
powers:

"...The
Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the
community. The legislature not only commands the purse,
but prescribes the rules ... The judiciary ... has no influence over
either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or
of the wealth of the society..."[5]

In Federalist
No. 58 (4th para from end) Madison explains why the House
alone is granted power to propose taxes (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl.
1): To protect The People from overreaching by the other branches
of the federal government:

"...The
House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose,
the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word,
hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold,
in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation
of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance,
and finally reducing ... all the overgrown prerogatives of the other
branches of the government. This power over the purse may ...
be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any
constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people,
for obtaining a redress of every grievance..."

Ponder
Hamilton's and Madison's words. You must understand what they are saying
if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise, the BBA will
usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Pursuant
to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing
the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President's
preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section
3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.

But
Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It
actually transfers the constitutional power to make the appropriations
and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will
become a rubber stamp.

Now
look at this pretty little snare: Section 8 of the proposed BBA says:

"No
court of the United States or of any State shall order any
increase in revenue to enforce this article." [emphasis added]

Our
Constitution does not grant to courts any power to "order" tax
increases. So why does Sec. 8 of the BBA say they can't do it?

"An
implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to believe that
if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the
ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly.
Because of this expectation, the legislature's failure to mention
the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately excluded.
Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied. ..."
[emphasis added]

Why
does Sec. 8 of the BBA exclude the President? From this exclusion,
one may reasonably infer that the intent of Sec. 8 is to permit
the President to order tax increases. If the BBA is ratified,
you can be sure that Presidents will claim power under Sec. 8 of the BBA
to order tax increases. That inference is strengthened by the fact that
Sec. 3 of the BBA transfers constitutional power over the Budget to the
President.

So!
The BBA surrenders the purse to the President! Our Framers understood
the danger of having the sword & the purse held by one person.
That is why our Constitution provides for Congress to make the
decisions on taxes & appropriations; and, as pointed out in Federalist
No. 72 (1st para), the President is to apply and disburse "the
public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature."

With
the BBA, Congress' sole remaining constitutional function over taxing
& spending will be to rubberstamp the dictates of the President.

3.
The BBA grants judicial power over taxing & spending to the federal
courts.

Article
III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all
Cases...arising under this Constitution."

If the
BBA is ratified, it will become an Amendment to the Constitution which
is subject to the judicial authority of the federal courts.

You
say the BBA won't transfer power over the purse to the President? You
say Congress won't become a mere rubberstamp whose sole remaining function
over taxing & appropriations is to enact into law the dictates of
the President?

Who
will decide? Since this would be an issue "arising under the
Constitution," the supreme Court will decide. The Judicial Branch
- a branch which Hamilton took care to point out should have no power
whatsoever over The Purse.

And
so five (5) people on the supreme Court will decide an issue which goes
to the heart of our Constitution - an issue which the People clamoring
for the BBA don't even know exists. And remember: Our supreme Court is
filled with fallen people who looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and
said it means that women may kill their babies. They looked at the 1st
Amendment and said it means that Congress may regulate political speech,
and courts may ban Christian speech in the public square, but it gives
Westboro
"baptists" a "right" to spew their filth &
hate at private funerals of dead American heroes.

If the
BBA is ratified, do you really want five (5) of those judges deciding
this issue?[6]

What
is the Solution to The Financial Plight Congress has put us in?

We have
47 Republican U.S. Senators who don't understand [or do they?] the ramifications
of the BBA which some of them (most notably Senators Jim De Mint &
Mike Lee) are determined to cram down our throats. Many supposedly conservative
talk show hosts & pundits (most notably Redstate.com)
are carrying their water. Whether these people are fools or tyrants, I
do not know. But you must learn that you can not trust anybody.
You must insist that people prove what they
say!

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

WE THE
PEOPLE must reclaim our glorious Heritage. We must find & support
candidates who understand the Constitution, obey it, and agree to work
to dismantle the unconstitutional federal apparatus. We can eliminate
the trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending by restoring constitutional
government. In an orderly fashion, we can dismantle the multitude of offices
and agencies and departments of the last 100 years which harass us and
eat out our sustenance.

Oh my
People! The grinning politicians who promise you "fiscal responsibility"
with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution.
Their BBA will legalize a totalitarian dictatorship.
Do not be deceived by them - they are leading you astray, and their BBA
will destroy us.

Oh you
Proponents of this thoroughly Evil Scheme: I throw my glove in your face:
Show me, if you can, where I am wrong. Or rethink it.

Footnotes:1.
Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund scientific research.
Congress' only power in the areas of the arts and sciences is to issue
patents and copyrights (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8). If Congress obeyed Our
Constitution and stopped funding "scientific" research, the
proponents of these idiotic studies would have to do something useful
instead of sucking at the taxpayers' teat.2.
We must repent of our desire to live at other peoples' expense.
This is the contradiction which undermines the Tea Party.
Many don't want a constitutional government of limited & enumerated
powers. They just want to eliminate funding for programs they
don't like. They want their social security, their Medicare,
their government retirement pensions, their perks. I
beg each of you who is now living at other peoples' expense: Are you willing
to sacrifice your grandchildren so that you can keep your handouts? Or
will you accept an orderly & gradual dismantlement
of the unconstitutional "entitlement" programs?3.
Are you aware that federal
executive agencies are forming their own SWAT teams? Are you aware
that DHS is federalizing our local police and using their fusion
centers to turn them into a national secret police - America's version
of the STAZI? Building Obama's "civilian national security force"
which is "just as powerful just as strong just as well funded as
the military" takes money. Lots of it! The BBA will permit
the President to write into the Budget the funding needed to build this
armed force; and it will be under his sole & personal control.4.
Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending The Constitution.5.
In Federalist No. 26, Hamilton addresses how Congress is to determine
(after public deliberations) the appropriations for the military; and
warns that the President must never be given power over the purse respecting
armed forces:

"The legislature
of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision [Art. I, Sec.
8, cl. 12], once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the
propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution
on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal
vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY
to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support
of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose
in it so improper a confidence...." (9th para) [capitals
are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

"It has been
said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for
the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing,
because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to
awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force
sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of
the legislature...." (12th para)

Do you see
that Hamilton warned us not to trust the President with power to determine
the funding for the armed forces? Learn from Hamilton & Madison.
Or perish.6.
If the President disagrees with the supreme Court's decision, he - who
would, thanks to the BBA, hold both the sword & the purse - could
ignore it with impunity.

Publius Huldah
is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a
law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in
political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She
now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist
Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how
federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced
it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

"No Money shall
be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made
by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures
of all public Money shall be published from time to time."